Morris v. TRBR, Inc.

SARAH MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. TRBR, INC. D/B/A SUPERIOR BUICK GMC, Defendant.

Case No. 18-12252

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

May 13, 2020

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12]

Plaintiff, Sarah Morris, brings this retaliation and discrimination action against her former employer, TRBR, Inc., doing business as Superior GMC ("Superior" or "Superior GMC"). Plaintiff started working at Superior GMC in June 2016 as a Title Clerk before she was fired one year later. Plaintiff claims that she was subject to heightened scrutiny and ultimately fired, because she refused to engage in Defendant's illegal car registration practices; complained to her supervisor about a co-worker who was harassing her; and began dating the Chaldean owners' nephew, and Plaintiff's current husband, against their wishes. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Public Policy, and Title VII. Due to the statute of limitations, Plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of her Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA") claims. (ECF No. 14, PageID. 317).

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12], filed on May 31, 2019. On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Response [14]. On July 26, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply [15]. For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Superior GMC hires Plaintiff

Defendant Superior GMC is a car dealership located in Dearborn, Michigan. It is owned and operated by a Chaldean married couple, Bas and Tanya Robin. (ECF No. 14-12, PageID. 485). Defendant hired Plaintiff as a Title Clerk in June 2016. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 417). Title Clerks process titles for vehicles after they have been purchased. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 424). On her job application Plaintiff was asked if she had ever been convicted of a crime. (ECF No. 12-2, PageID. 202). She marked "no." (Id.). However, when asked the same question during a deposition for this lawsuit, Plaintiff claimed that in 2005 she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated. (ECF No. 12-3, PageID. 216).

B. Titling Issues

Plaintiff's main job was to process vehicle titles. However, the vehicle title process at Superior GMC was suspicious to Plaintiff. Instead of waiting for insurance information and car registration documents before processing titles, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant told her to forge customers' signatures and process titles with only a license plate photo. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 423). Plaintiff claims that she confirmed her suspicions of this practice when she called the State of Michigan. During the call, Plaintiff asked if she could "use a picture of a license plate to register a vehicle?" (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 443). She claims the representative answered, "[n]o, absolutely under no condition. It has to be a valid registration." (Id.). Afterwards, Plaintiff informed one of the owners, Tanya Robin, of the conversation. (ECF No. 14-10, PageID. 481). Defendant's title practices, however, did not change and Plaintiff continued to resist them. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 425). As a consequence, Plaintiff claims that her work piled up and the titles did not get processed as fast as her supervisor, Barbara LaLonde, wanted. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 423, 426). Plaintiff also alleges that as a result of her resistance she was subject to heightened scrutiny. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 425). For example, she was accused of being distracted at work, using her cellphone during her shift, andallowing unauthorized individuals in the cashier's area, which she was formally reprimanded for. (Id.; ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 425-26).

C. Plaintiff's Harassment Complaint

Plaintiff claims that a co-worker, Alan Kincaid, harassed her while at work. She claims that, at first, she and Kincaid were friends and would occasionally have lunch together. (ECF No. 12-3, PageID. 223, 227). But once she rebuffed his romantic advances, Plaintiff claims that Kincaid took "every opportunity he had to make [her] uncomfortable." (Id. at 221-22). He began to harass her by coming into the cashier's office, where she occasionally worked, unauthorized to ask why she would not talk to him, "touch things on [her] desk" and "linger" (Id.). She claims that he additionally kept close tabs on her Facebook activity and made comments about her posts. (Id. at 223).

Kincaid's harassment was evident to other employees. Plaintiff's friend and co-worker, Tiffiny Holladay, observed that Kincaid "was going out of his way to try to just be irritating . . . [and] make [Plaintiff] uncomfortable." (ECF No. 12-7, PageID. 253). Plaintiff's co-worker and now husband also observed several instances of Kincaid's harassment and even instances of Kincaid following Plaintiff around the showroom (ECF No. 14-2, PageID. 400-01). In April 2017, Plaintiff made a complaint about Kincaid's behavior to her supervisor, Barbara LaLonde, andrequested a meeting. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 448). Plaintiff claims that LaLonde was annoyed by her complaint during their meeting and did not properly address her concerns. (Id.). After the meeting, both Kincaid and Plaintiff received an email about how to behave professionally with one another. (ECF No. 12-20, PageID. 300; ECF No. 12-15, PageID. 285). A few days later, Plaintiff received a write-up for allowing unauthorized people into the cashier's office. (ECF No. 14-3, PageID. 427). Generally, only managers and authorized cashier office personnel were allowed inside the cashier office. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that the write-up and her subsequent termination were retaliation for her complaint against Kincaid. (ECF No. 12-3, PageID. 236). Defendant denies this and claims that Plaintiff was treated no differently than any other employee in the same position. For example, Defendant points to the fact that Holladay was also disciplined and subsequently terminated for allowing unauthorized employees into the cashier's office. (ECF No. 12-18, PageID. 294).

D. Dating the Owners' Nephew

In April of 2017, Plaintiff began dating her co-worker and current husband, Ricardo Harmis¹. Harmis is the nephew of Superior's owners, the Robins. (ECF No.14-2, PageID. 344). Plaintiff alleges that the Robins discouraged Harmis from dating Plaintiff, because she is not Chaldean. Harmis testified to the following at his deposition:

[Bas Robin] had asked me why I was smoking cigarettes with Sarah and that he didn't want any problems with me talking to co-workers and that I need to stay away from her because he said like bad things like she was trash and she's a white girl and you can't do that, don't embarrass me, she has kids, and I had just said that we're just co-workers, we're just smoking cigarettes.

(ECF No. 14-2, PageID. 392).

In contrast, Bas Robin claims that he did not have any opinions about whether Harmis should only date Chaldean women. (ECF No. 12-9, PageID. 266). In fact, both Bas and Tanya Robin claim that they did not know Plaintiff and Harmis were dating. (Id.; ECF No. 12-10, PageID. 268). Bas Robin even believed that Harmis was dating another girl named Fabiola. (ECF No. 12-9, PageID. 266). Plaintiff herself corroborates that at the time of her termination, "everybody thought that [Harmis] was dating a different girl." (ECF No. 12-3, PageID. 241). Harmis also states that he did not know if Bas Robin knew he and Plaintiff were dating, and only "assum[ed] that [Tanya Robin] knew through her sister." (ECF No. 14-2, PageID.392). Moreover, Harmis does not remember if he told Plaintiff about the alleged comments before she was fired. (Id. at 393).

E. Plaintiff's Termination

Plaintiff was filling in for the receptionist and answering calls from customers during the week leading up to her termination. While doing so, Defendant alleges that several employees saw that was Plaintiff "rude" toward customers on the phone. (ECF No. 12-12, PageID. 275; ECF No. 15-11, PageID. 825-833). They claimed to have heard her yelling at customers when she could not understand them and repeatedly hang up the phone instead of transferring them to the right department. (Id.) Some employees even complained to Tanya Robin. (ECF No. 15-11, PageID. 830-832). Moreover, Tanya Robin herself claims to have witnessed Plaintiff exhibit this behavior "a handful of times" and reprimanded her. (Id. at 140-41). On the day she was fired, Bas Robin claims that he received several complaints from customers about Plaintiff's behavior. (ECF No. 12-10, PageID. 269). Bas Robin testified to the following: "I had numerous people come up to me and said, listen, I'm not going to come to the dealership no more because of that person. She's yelling and screaming, saying all kind of stuff to them, hanging up on them." (Id.). He subsequently told Barbara LaLonde to fire her. (Id. at 270). LaLonde promptly did so and told Plaintiff that she did not like her attitude. (ECF No. 14-13, PageID. 488; ECF No. 14-3,PageID. 430). Plaintiff denies all of these allegations and claims she was never rude to customers. Holladay similarly claims that Plaintiff was not rude to customers, although she "observed her to be short at times" and "to the point" with customers who were not easy to talk to. (ECF No. 12-7, PageID. 255).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed this suit in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging Whistleblower Protection Act and Public Policy violations. On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to include ELCRA claims for gender and racial discrimination. Plaintiff filed a charge against Defendant with the EEOC and received a Right to Sue Letter on her Ttile VII claims. On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint to include Title VII gender and racial discrimination claims. Plaintiff filed a charge against Defendant with the EEOC and brought her Title VII claims after receiving a Right to Sue Letter. On July...